31 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI thought the issue was whether Obama was "significantly different" from GWB on foreign policy. Certainly on Iraq he was not (at least from 2008 on). I guess one could argue that he was "different" from GWB on Afghanistan in that he wanted to expand the killing even more than the prior President did; if you wish to give him a kudo for that go ahead.
I see, and you're privy to what was being discussed prior to the 2008 campaign?
The disagreement here is over whether Obama kept his campaign promises. So far you haven't refuted my example of a promise he kept.
EDIT: In fact even up to October 2011 the Obama administration was trying to convince the Iraqi government to accept a "residual force" of US troops. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/Obama-wont-keep-troops-in-Iraq-554130/1#.UVfODJMTKlc
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderObama opposed the war in the first place, which is a pretty huge difference. Being for a phased transition of responsibility to Iraqi forces is being smart, not "pro" Iraq war.
I thought the issue was whether Obama was "significantly different" from GWB on foreign policy. Certainly on Iraq he was not (at least from 2008 on). I guess one could argue that he was "different" from GWB on Afghanistan in that he wanted to expand the killing even more than the prior President did; if you wish to give him a kudo for that go ahead.
E ...[text shortened]... .com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/Obama-wont-keep-troops-in-Iraq-554130/1#.UVfODJMTKlc
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGee I don't know how the rest of the world gets along without the US militarily occupying their country; all those "huge security vacuums".
I don't know. But it's not like people wouldn't die if the US just did a mass exedus on Jan 20th, 2009. That would have left behind a huge security vacuum.
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou say Obama was against the war in the first place. Are you sure? What is your source of information?
Obama opposed the war in the first place, which is a pretty huge difference. Being for a phased transition of responsibility to Iraqi forces is being smart, not "pro" Iraq war.
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderThey already have their security apparatuses in place and don't have half the s*** going on that Iraq does?
Gee I don't know how the rest of the world gets along without the US militarily occupying their country; all those "huge security vacuums".
31 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainPositive. He spoke out against the war publicly, on camera, right from the beginning. This isn't even a contested notion. It's widely known.
You say Obama was against the war in the first place. Are you sure? What is your source of information?
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperObama was also against gay marriage before he was for it.
Positive. He spoke out against the war publicly, on camera, right from the beginning. This isn't even a contested notion. It's widely known.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/09/obama-reverses-position-same-sex-marriage
He has had other changes too. Perhaps that is what he really meant by "change you can believe in".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100083104/the-u-turn-president-barack-obama-top-ten-flip-flops/
Obama was not a US Senator when it came time to vote for or against the Iraq war, so his resolve has not been truly tested. He also picked Hillary Clinton for his Secretary of State and her husband wanted to invade Iraq using the same reasons GW Bush would later use.
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo he held strong to a position where I agree with him (the Iraq war), and changed his position on an issue where I didn't. Well, I'm sold.
Obama was also against gay marriage before he was for it.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/09/obama-reverses-position-same-sex-marriage
He has had other changes too. Perhaps that is what he really meant by "change you can believe in".
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100083104/the-u-turn-president-barack-obama-top-ten- ...[text shortened]... of State and her husband wanted to invade Iraq using the same reasons GW Bush would later use.
As for Clinton's husband, who gives a crap?
01 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYeah but I dont think He meant the US.
Not very well they burn witches sever noses eat pygmies rape bushmen and harvest the organs of the poor
Seriously the US created the power vacuumn in Iraq when they dismantled the bath'ist regime instead of decapitating it, so the least they can do is hold the fort until the void is filled by a self sustaining alternative.
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by kevcvs57"Holding the fort" in this case meant tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths (probably hundreds of thousands).
Yeah but I dont think He meant the US.
Seriously the US created the power vacuumn in Iraq when they dismantled the bath'ist regime instead of decapitating it, so the least they can do is hold the fort until the void is filled by a self sustaining alternative.
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAre you familiar with this piece of history? Slick Willie tried to gain support for an invasion of Iraq. He failed, but not because of a lack of effort.
So he held strong to a position where I agree with him (the Iraq war), and changed his position on an issue where I didn't. Well, I'm sold.
As for Clinton's husband, who gives a crap?
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
Democrats are imperialists too, not just Republicans.
01 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauder190,000 lives according to this link. Probably more than that.
"Holding the fort" in this case meant tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths (probably hundreds of thousands).
http://theweek.com/article/index/241464/the-cost-of-the-iraq-war-190000-lives-22-trillion